ReviewThe Japanese dental science review2026
Which is the best adhesive system for primary tooth enamel? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of bond strength data.
Review in The Japanese dental science review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Four Universal Adhesive Protocols for the Internal Adaptation of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Micro-CT Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Evaluate the bond strength performance of the different types of adhesive systems to the primary tooth enamel. Methods: This study was registered in the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YURB4). A two-stage literature search was conducted by two independent reviewers on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and gray literature to identify Results: The final sample was composed of 14 articles. The 2-bottle universal adhesive system with phosphoric acid etching (PAE) was statistically similar to the 3-step etch-and-rinse (E&R). In addition, self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives with the same number of steps had similar performances. In the ranking, 3-step E&R had the highest probability of being ranked the best adhesive, while 1-step self-etch without PAE had the lowest. All studies had a low risk of bias. Conclusion: 2-bottle universal adhesive systems with PAE can probably provide similar bond strength to primary tooth enamel compared to 3-Step E&R. In addition, the similar performance of some of the tested adhesive systems indicates the possibility to reduce clinical steps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.